Kaymore v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kaymore v. State

846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732, 2003 WL 21338937

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 2003

DocketNo. 2D03-919

StatusPublished

This text of 846 So. 2d 1254 (Kaymore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaymore v. State, 846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732, 2003 WL 21338937 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Darryl Kaymore argues that his habitual violent felony offender sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory is illegal under Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional. However, his claim is facially insufficient because he has failed to allege the date of his offenses or how he was affected by the amendments to the violent career criminal statute contained in chapter 99-188. See Pruitte v. State, 845 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Glover v. State, 845 So.2d 258(Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Kay-more may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising these claims.

Affirmed.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Darryl Kaymore argues that his habitual violent felony offender sentence with a ten-year minimum mandatory is illegal under Taylor v. State, 818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), which held chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, unconstitutional. However, his claim is facially insufficient because he has failed to allege the date of his offenses or how he was affected by the amendments to the violent career criminal statute contained in chapter 99-188. See Pruitte v. State, 845 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Glover v. State, 845 So.2d 258(Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice to any right Kay-more may have to file a facially sufficient rule 3.800(a) motion raising these claims.

Affirmed.

DAVIS and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 So. 2d 1254, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8732, 2003 WL 21338937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaymore-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack